The Spirit Level

This excellent talk was given at the SWP's Marxism festival in 2011 by Richard Wilkinson. He co-authored The Spirit Level with Kate Pickett, and was published in 2009. It's an excellent read that proves time and again that equality leads to better, healthier, more secure, and more trusting societies. And that even the mega rich in more equal societies have a better standard of life than the mega rich in unequal countries. If you find this video interesting I very much recommend the book.

Ed Miliband's Canny Speech

Our friends in the post below didn't like Ed Miliband's speech because they're scared. They're scared because for over a generation their party has not had to face a serious, social democratic challenge. A bit like a company management that hasn't seen strike action for a very long period of time and all of a sudden workers are balloting for action, the Tories cannot answer the policy offerings Labour's 2013 conference has placed on the table. Tax rises for the very rich. An end to land banking. Sector-specific minimum wages. No more free schools. A million new homes. Tax cuts for small business. Energy price freezes. Expansion of free childcare. What really can the Tories and their yellow party friends offer in response, apart from hysteria and name calling?

It was, like last year, a bravura speech. But whereas 2012's One Nation schtick was an intervention within the Westminster bubble, albeit a masterful one; today Ed's message was geared toward the "real people" for whom politics is something to be indulged every four or five years. For the assidiously-courted swing voter of the "squeezed middle", action on energy, housing, and business rates will go down very well indeed - what the Tories can promise in return to woo them over would be difficult to say. By being canny, by, for example, allowing Rachel Reeves to say people on £60 grand aren't rich and then going on to pledge tax rises on the tiny numbers pulling down over one hundred and fifty big ones, the tax bomb the Tories have used in the past to shore up the middle class vote is diffused before they can lob it. There will also be quite enough here to lure back a lot of Labour voters who've either gone elsewhere or have mostly stayed at home.

From an activist standpoint, these are what you might call "proper" Labour policies. However, take them together they're not a panacea. After all, they are still framed within the language of "strict spending limits". But it is a beginning, and are what could be described as a stride in the right direction. They point towards a radically different political economy to that touted by the Tories. This is something positive, something that can offer hope and security at the time our enemy can only talk about fear and misery. And if that's how they really want to fight the next election, roll on 2015.

Tory Responses to Ed Miliband's Speech

To be fair, there have been a couple of thinking responses from the blue corner. Peter Oborne continues his trajectory as a sort-of Tory Dan Hodges, minus the bile and the blockheaded Blairism circa 1997. Anyone who regularly reads his offering knows Oborne is finding it increasingly difficult to hide his admiration for the Labour leader. Hostile, but thoughtful nonetheless is Benedict Brogan's take. Beneath the bluster he faithfully reproduces from CCHQ, he's come to the realisation the Tories face a much tougher opponent than their ridiculous Weak Ed meme suggests.

However, I think these are pearls cast before swine if these nuggets from the Tory grassroots (including a couple of MPs!) are anything to go by.

Not being funny but the right in this country needs to unite to keeps these socialist nutcases out of government
— Richard (@richie_1994wale) September 24, 2013

Miliband's an insincere idiot & I fear for the mental health of anyone who was impressed by today's speech. How are you feeling Blairites?
— Lion-o (@PompeyGoat) September 24, 2013

High taxation, big brother state. Attacks on individual freedom. Welcome to Ed's socialist Britain.
— CPryers (@CPryers) September 24, 2013

What a scary picture of future #RedEd painted today at #lab13 if he ever came to power. End of free society. #NoToSocialism #NoToLabour
— Nara Hodge (@NaraHodge) September 24, 2013

Clear after Milibands speech today that if you vote UKIP in 2015 you will get a return to 70s socialism. Do not let it happen
— Cllr Chris Byrne (@cbyrne321) September 24, 2013

Wonder if UKIP supporters are so keen now when their votes will potentially help elect most extreme Left Lab government in modern times
— Stewart Jackson MP (@SJacksonMP) September 24, 2013

Worrying threat to Kingswood Greenbelt and other greenbelts in country with Ed Miliband's pledge to forcibly nationalise land for building
— Chris Skidmore MP (@chrisskidmoremp) September 24, 2013

RT @IDS_MP: Hitler gave good speeches. He was also a Socialist. #Lab13 / #TBF he sorted the roads out
— @Parlez_me_nTory (@Parlez_me_nTory) September 24, 2013

“@Y2jimbob: @jimfleming2012 I like it when they clap behind him. Looks like Nuremburg” <Well he is positioning Labour as National Socialists
— Jim Fleming (@jimfleming2012) September 24, 2013

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Intersectionality Made Simple

This via The Sociological Imagination and Stavvers.

Solidarity with Victor Crespo

While we play silly buggers with union links and Westminster watching, it is worth remembering that many of our comrades elsewhere risk their lives to defend working people. This from LabourStart's Eric Lee via Howie's Corner. I urge readers to take a moment to send a message of support.

Last Friday, armed men attempted to force their way into the home of Victor Crespo (pictured), the general secretary of a trade union in Honduras. They threatened Crespo's life -- and only fled the scene once neighbors were alerted.

The International Transport Workers Federation believes that the attack is related to Victor's leadership of port workers who have been demanding the right to bargain collectively with their new employers in Puerto Cortes.

Fearing for Victor's life, the ITF has taken steps to guarantee his safety, and he's been moved to a safe location.

They have launched a global campaign to demand that the Honduran president intervene and get proper protection for him.

Please take a moment to send a message supporting this demand - click here.

In yesterday's mass mailing, we asked you to support the latest two IUF campaigns on Colombia and Honduras. For about two hours yesterday, the IUF website was offline and many of you were unable to gain access. It's back online and you have another chance to support these campaigns:

* Colombia
* Honduras

The latter campaign has gotten the attention of the Rainforest Alliance, which has responded to thousands of you with their side of the story.

And the IUF has responded to their statement quite forcefully here.

It includes this powerful passage: "The IUF believes that strong, independent unions are the best 'monitors' of working conditions. External audits can only provide a snapshot at best of working conditions; a union would be there every day representing workers, bargaining for improvements in pay and conditions and making sure labour legislation and international standards are applied."

The struggle continues.

Damian McBride and Westminster Bubblegum

Deary me. In the words of no lesser figure than Nigel Farage, "Godfrey Bloom has destroyed UKIP conference". Everyone in the media's talking about the self-styled "maverick" MEP after he called a roomful of women "sluts". And amateurish attempts by UKIP spinners to argue that it has a different meaning to "slag" which, in 21st century Britain, it clearly doesn't, is pitiful.

While NF is smarting from "the Bloomster", the owner of Biteback Publishing must have been hoping the oh-so-coincidental publishing of Damian McBride's Downing Street memoir, Power Trip, would similarly derail Labour's annual gathering. After all, feuding with Blairites, skullduggery and calling people names over email is just the sort of thing that should cause major reputational damage to Ed Miliband, or "the emissary from Planet Fuck" as Tony's team once dubbed him.

Really? I'm sure McBride's volume will be fascinating for Westminster watchers and anoraks. I'm quite looking forward to reading it eventually (how about a review copy, Damian?). But let's get real here. "Normal" people don't care. The majority of The Mail's readers will skip the splashed extracts on their way to the beauty supplement, the telly pages and the latest offering on the occult sex secrets of the Third Reich. Few people outside the intersection of Westminster politics and our London-centric media would be able to name prominent ministers of the present government, never mind a backroom fixer who's spent the last four years in obscurity. Instead what the generally interested voter will be interested in hearing about are this weekend's policy announcements, such as the scrapping of the bedroom tax, strengthening the minimum wage, introducing disability hate crime laws, and an expansion of publicly-provided childcare facilities. At last, the slow-emerging positions Labour will go into 2015 with are stepping out into the light. And the Tories and their media running dogs will be forced to respond to them - leaving the McBride stuff as page seven filler.

These sorts of exposes are an everyday occurrence for our politics. There is always reams of material produced by current or former players that almost exclusively addresses itself to the past and present concerns of the Westminster Bubble. It works to "gum" the bubble together by generating matters of mutual interest to participants across the political divides - an issue-based lingua franca if you like. And, helpfully for the media, it is a constant source of mostly inconsequential manoeuvring and tittle tattle that costs very little to report. Yet crucially, it passes the yardstick for newsworthiness too. Few would bat an eyelid if Newsnight gave over an entire programme to revisiting the original Smeargate.

McBride's book, simply put, is bubblegum.

Ayumi Hamasaki - M (Above & Beyond Cyber Trance Remix)

No time for a proper post this evening as I'll be heading to that most august monthly occasion: the Stoke-on-Trent Central Labour Party meeting. But thanks to Ed's entirely welcome announcement of Labour's intention to scrap the bedroom tax, the assembled comrades may be a little less cynical.

While it is ridiculous that the leadership have prevaricated over the bedroom tax for so long, a return to something resembling principled opposition deserves marking. And this blog being this blog, the proper way is to inflict a superb trance classic on you readers. This time it's the Above & Beyond Cyber Trance Remix of M by bubble gum J-Pop exponent, Ayumi Hamasaki.

Dave's Dilemmas

"What the hell can the Tories do about UKIP?" asks Iain Martin in this afternoon's Telegraph. What indeed? Their poll ratings have calmed down since Farage-mania gripped the media back in May, but their consistent score of between 10-12% has them ahead of the hapless LibDems. And, unfortunately for the Tories, UKIP voters will not flock to their banner in 2015. Enough will stick with the purples to lay open very many marginal seats. That is, unless, the Tories can pull a bunny out of the hat and win over voters who are presently looking elsewhere.

I just don't think they can do it. Tories who think UKIP's growth lies in its unreconstructed Toryism are falling into the sort of stupid empiricism one would expect from the stupid party. As a populist party they will say and do anything if they think they can get votes. Remember their "libertarianism"? It's kinda vanished with the mist, because opposing the sell off of Royal Mail is popular and idiotic flat tax policies are not. It means combating UKIP is tough because this leopard constantly changes its spots. UKIP is like mercury - fluid, frictionless, and utterly toxic.

The problems of dealing with UKIP are well known. Tack to the centre ground and disgruntled Tory voters will disproportionately stick with Farage. Tack right to try and win them back, swing voters and soft Tories in all likelihood will cast their ballots elsewhere. So what Iain says about CCHQ "looking to expose and exploit Ukip's numerous mistakes and the crazier statements of some of its most senior figures" is all they've got left. He's also right that it won't work - unless its entire front rank are exposed as tax dodgers with unfortunate internet habits. And yes, there are many in UKIP who don't care for the "vote Nigel, get Ed" argument. It's not so much they want to sink the Tories, which they do, but they believe they're on the cusp of replacing them.

Another option theoretically open to the Tories is the offer a positive programme. Yet they immediately run up against a problem. What vision can the party offer post-2015? A Britain floating on yet another house price bubble, stagnating and declining wages, Gove's pub quiz curriculum*, more privatised healthcare, the running down of public services and a bucketload more insecurity and worry does not make for the most appetising of choices. Of course, they won't present it like that. But rerunning their 2010 campaign of nice, liberal Dave is as impossible as it would be insincere. Nor is there anything they can really promise. Three years in and they're politically exhausted. They're tied to a deeply damaging neoliberalism that basically greenlights their rich friends' looting of the economy, and that's it. Their return would merely lock Britain into a death spiral of terminal economic decline.

So outflanked to the right, and with nothing of substance to offer. Not a great position to be in if you want to win a general election. Still, they could point out how much worse Labour would be. However, the Labour of 2015 will be different to the one we have today. For one, it will have substantive policies that offer a real change to the complacency of the Coalition years. And it will be talking about them. By prattling on about "weak Ed" now, the Tories have instructed Labour that a personality contest is a game that can only benefit their poison pen politics and that they are something to be avoided. Should Labour be successful in evading Crosby's gambits and battle the election on the field of policy, the Tories will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

But the Conservatives have always got their record to fall back on. Ah, but it isn't as easy as that. An unseemly bunfight with their erstwhile partners in the yellow party awaits as the parties compete for credit for the pitifully few genuinely progressive and popular policies enacted on their watch.

Incredibly, some paid-for commentators like to portray the 2015 election as "Dave's to lose".

There is only one event that could upset this depressing set of circumstances the Tories face. And that is if Scotland votes for independence next year. At a stroke a solid chunk of Labour seats vanish and the party faces a difficult, but not insurmountable task of winning a majority. The polls are looking decidedly 'no' at the moment. But as referendum day a year hence approaches, there will be more than a few in the Tory Party quietly crossing their fingers and hoping for a yes.

*Phrase Credit

A Note on Natural Science and Social Science

Doting dads have small bollocks. That was the news story preoccupying the news cycle for half a day last week. You may recall it appeared to "scientifically" prove a correlation between the size of a man's balls and whether he's a doting dad or not. Small balls = good dads. Giant bawbags - bad dads. Of course, it did nothing of the sort. How it got through peer review for a prestigious scientific journal when a simpleton like me drove a cart and horses through their sampling beggars belief. This isn't to say there is no correlation, it's just that they have not proved it because they failed to rule out all kinds of factors that might have a bearing on their result. If one was being uncharitable, you might say they found the result they were looking for. But I am going to be generous and say their error arose from social scientific illiteracy.

Usefully, the comment left underneath the original post summed up this problem perfectly. It read:

It might be that the reason that neuroscientists can do sociology, but the sociologists cannot do neuroscience could be the same reason why fighter pilots can ride bicycles, but cyclists can't fly fighter aircraft.

You would be surprised at the amount of work that neuroscientists have done on the effects of estrogen/androgen neuronal sculpting during brain development.

Still, stick to what you know and keep cycling.

Smuggery is never an attractive feature, but it's fatal when hitched to stupidity. Small wonder our correspondent hit the anonymity button. In short, this is anti-scientific bupkis pretending to be super serious science. Their position, if it can be dignified as such, opposes natural science to social science. There is no understanding of the scientific division of labour, of the various specialisms it contains and the limits of those methods. A chemist, for example, would not lecture a biologist on the workings of the cardio-vascular system. But that isn't to say chemists and biologists wouldn't find cause to occasionally collaborate on a problem of mutual interest. The two disciplines have overlapping areas of concern and can fruitfully work together to generate new scientific knowledge.

Like natural sciences, social science has its own intellectual division of labour. 'Social science' is more than just sociology. And like chemistry and biology, its disciplines can on their own and in collaboration with one another provide knowledge about the social world that is completely different to that produced by natural sciences. As I noted in reply to our blockhead, our neuroscientists can slice and dice some grey matter on a slide and gawp at it down a microscope. But however hard you look you will not find there the structure of Roman legions, the key to marketing beauty products or the production process for the internal combustion engine.

There have been many attempts to directly apply natural scientific methods to the domain of social analysis many times over the last two centuries, and without fail they have come unstuck. The behaviour of people as individuals and collectives is its own province. But that isn't to say social science and natural science can't collaborate. For example, no social scientist collaborating with our testicle-measuring team would have let their bad science go forward for publishing without testing social variables and providing robust sampling. But because they didn't, an opportunity to advance the understanding of the complex interface between the biological body and society was missed.

In short, natural science vs social science is pointless and a recipe for bad knowledge. But recognising separate domains of analysis, research practice and their limits, that way lies the path to collaborative wisdom.

The Coming LibDem/Tory War

Believe it or not, there is one time of the year the political commentariat are more insufferable than the nonsense of the silly season. And that's when it's Liberal Democrat conference. And it is painful, I mean, really painful. Let's look at the exhibits.

Underneath the demand-destroying cuts and general laissez-faire attitude to economics, Vince Cable has been hinting that he's a bit of a lefty (again). There are "red lines" he tells us. Matters of principle that would have him up sticks from the cabinet should the government do especially appalling things. I wonder what they are. His department and Vince's Tory colleagues in the treasury have sat on their hands for three years, allowing untold numbers of firms to go to the wall and see good, public sector occupations replaced by zero hour, low paid, and precarious jobs in their hundreds of thousands. He's also happily gone along with attacks on the poor so vindictive, so utterly vile that even the UN have condemned them.

A less tarnished figure is LibDem president Tim Farron. Like Vince, he's out on manoeuvres. He's been burnishing his left credentials too, and has cast a few sultry glances at Ed Miliband. It is so stunningly obvious that he's angling for the LibDem leadership and the deputy PM slot under a Labour-led coalition government it's bordering on the indecent. Still, there's nothing wrong with ambition. And it's entirely appropriate our Tim desires to be a number two.

And then there's good old Calamity himself. Nick Robinson's interview with Nick Clegg boils down to who the LibDems want to get in bed with come 2015, should Britain's archaic electoral system deliver up another hung parliament. Is that a little hint he's leaning toward Dave? Or could it indicate he favours Ed Miliband?

Mind-numbing. You really have to be paid to write about LibDem intrigues at length. But there is something about the current LibDem/Tory relationship that I don't think has yet been fully appreciated by Westminster watchers.

General elections everywhere and always involve political parties setting out their stall, attacking opponents and defending their period in government. The problem for our coalition parties is one inadvertently highlighted by my Tory Twitter friend, Angela Neptustar. The LibDems will lay credit for something that is popular, like today's announcement of free school meals for our youngest pupils, and the Tories will dispute it. The Tories will claim that a particular policy is theirs while the LibDems insist otherwise. Likewise with awful policies - one party will denounce it as an exigency of coalition, and the other will blame their erstwhile partners for dark deeds done. Fun and games.

What this means for 2015 is the introduction of a new logic of competition between the two parties. They will be forced to defend their records, as par the course, but also have a perceived electoral interest in squabbling with each other about who was responsible for what. This could lead to rows no one cares about easily derailing their campaign timetables and making them look even more out-of-touch then they actually are. Which is some feat.

Of course, this is only a plausible possibility. Politics comes with no iron certainties. The Tories and LibDems may run properly disciplined election campaigns on the basis of some informal non-aggression treaty. But it's difficult to see how intense wrangles over who-did-what won't occur. And when they do, it will be to their mutual ruin.